ORDER : Pankaj Bhandari, J. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition aggrieved by order dated 17.11.2016, vide which the application under Section 10 CPC was allowed and the second suit was stayed. 2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff that the parties in the suits were different. It is also contended that the relief claimed in the suits were different and the private defendants do not have any right to move application under Section 10 CPC. 3. In support of his contentions, counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Ganga Devi (Smt.) & Ors. v. Nanalal & Ors., 2012(1) DNJ (Raj.) 237; M/s.Sankhla Industries v. M/s. Hiralal Pukhraj, AIR 1973 Rajasthan 306 (V 60 C 80); Ranjitmal Choradia v. Shivram Singh & Ors., 2011(3) DNJ (Raj.) 985; Om Prakash Khadaria v. Navratan Mal & Ors., 2013(1) DNJ (Raj.) 458 and Rathnavathi & Anr. v. Kavita Ganashamdas, 2015 DNJ (SC) 15. 4. I have considered the contentions of counsel for the petitioner and have perused the plaint and subsequent plaint filed by the plaintiff/petitioner. 5. In the first suit filed by the petitioner, there were six parties. Defendants No.4 & 5 in that suit were the contractors of defendant No.3 and the relief claimed was that the defendants be restrained from raising constructions without obtaining permission from the municipality and the defendants be restrained from raising constructions on the land adjoining to the property of the plaintiff. Further relief was to the effect that seven feet lane be kept open. Relief was also sought that if any construction is made in the seven feet lane during pendency of the suit, the same be removed. 6. In the subsequent suit, there were four parties and the contractors, which were impleaded as party in the first suit were not impleaded as party. The relief claimed however was that the municipality be restrained from giving permission; the defendants be restrained from raising constructions in the seven feet lane. 7. From bare perusal of both the plaints, it is abundantly clear that the relief claimed in the subsequent suit is substantially the same, as claimed in the first suit. The parties in both the suits are also same, as in the earlier suit only the contractors of defendant No.3-Gangadevi were made party, whereas in the second suit, the contractors have not been made party. 8. The parties in both the suits are also same, as in the earlier suit only the contractors of defendant No.3-Gangadevi were made party, whereas in the second suit, the contractors have not been made party. 8. The matter in issue being directly and substantially in issue in the previously instituted suit, the court below has not committed any error in staying the second suit. 9. Rathnavathi & Anr. v. Kavita Ganashamdas (supra) was a case before the Apex Court, where the suit initially filed was a suit for injunction and the subsequent suit was a suit for specific performance. The Apex Court observed that as there is a different cause of action, the second suit is not barred. 10. In Om Prakash Khadaria v. Navratan Mal & Ors. (supra), the earlier suit was a suit for eviction and the subsequent suit was also a suit for eviction, but entirely on different grounds. The Apex Court in those circumstances, did not deem it proper to stay the second suit. 11. Ranjitmal Choradia v. Shivram Singh & Ors. (supra) was a case, where the Court observed that Section 10 CPC is attracted if parties in the suits are same and the subsequent suit is also substantially of the same nature. 12. Taking note of the judgments cited by counsel for the petitioner, it is abundantly clear that none of the judgments apply to the facts of the present case. The relief sought in the subsequent suit is directly and substantially in issue in the previously instituted suit and the parties are also common. The court below has therefore, not committed any error in staying the subsequent suit. 13. Consequently, the present writ petition is dismissed. The stay application also stands disposed.